Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 18, 2014, 07:07:52 AM
Home Help Login Register      
News: LiveATC.net Flyers Released!  Please click here to download & print a copy and be sure to post at an airport near you!


+  LiveATC Discussion Forums
|-+  Air Traffic Monitoring
| |-+  Listener Forum (Moderators: dave, RonR)
| | |-+  Another controller suspended
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] Go Down Print
Author Topic: Another controller suspended  (Read 5691 times)
djmodifyd
Guest
« Reply #15 on: April 03, 2011, 12:44:30 AM »

I think the supervisor conducting this operation may get caught with the technicality that the SR22 pilot must also be informed that visual separation is being applied prior to losing standard separation.

I believe that's only required when the targets are likely to merge, might be wrong there though

I also wouldn't do this with an air carrier, but that's personal preference. If the supe did the operation correctly I dont see the problem, but he might have not done it correctly


they got him on the rule that says you have to be ABLE to communicate to the 2nd aircraft either directly or through another controller, not that you have to.

That rule only applies when the controller is providing the visual separation, which a radar controller never does. If the pilot is providing the visual separation the controller needs not be able to talk to the 2nd aircraft.

I don't think SWA was ever instructed to maintain visual separation, and the fact that it was a commercial aircraft is what is making this a bad thing.

I interpret the paragraph differently.  Radar controllers need to have the ability to communicate with the second aircraft according to 7-2-1.

http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/ATC/atc0702.html#atc0702.html.

Hmmm....after first glance it looks like you might be right. I'll have to look at all the notes and other related paragraphs, but I might have to change my interpretation!
Logged
alltheway
Guest
« Reply #16 on: April 03, 2011, 04:33:27 AM »

I think the supervisor conducting this operation may get caught with the technicality that the SR22 pilot must also be informed that visual separation is being applied prior to losing standard separation.

I believe that's only required when the targets are likely to merge, might be wrong there though

I also wouldn't do this with an air carrier, but that's personal preference. If the supe did the operation correctly I dont see the problem, but he might have not done it correctly


they got him on the rule that says you have to be ABLE to communicate to the 2nd aircraft either directly or through another controller, not that you have to.

That rule only applies when the controller is providing the visual separation, which a radar controller never does. If the pilot is providing the visual separation the controller needs not be able to talk to the 2nd aircraft.

I don't think SWA was ever instructed to maintain visual separation, and the fact that it was a commercial aircraft is what is making this a bad thing.

I interpret the paragraph differently.  Radar controllers need to have the ability to communicate with the second aircraft according to 7-2-1.

http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/ATC/atc0702.html#atc0702.html.

Hmmm....after first glance it looks like you might be right. I'll have to look at all the notes and other related paragraphs, but I might have to change my interpretation!

Reading all of this is perfect for my study, it appears that the rules are difficult to understand and interpretted different by every single person on my planet....


See this comment as a Godwin hehehehe
« Last Edit: April 03, 2011, 04:35:10 AM by alltheway » Logged
jonboudreaux
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 28


« Reply #17 on: April 05, 2011, 09:34:28 AM »

Ok I'm a little lost on y'alls interpretation of 7-2-1...

Are you saying that you need to be able to communicate with BOTH aircraft involved?
Logged
eltors0
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 23


« Reply #18 on: April 05, 2011, 10:32:20 PM »

Ok I'm a little lost on y'alls interpretation of 7-2-1...

Are you saying that you need to be able to communicate with BOTH aircraft involved?

Not necessarily. You need to be in communications with one of the aircraft and have the capabilities to get in contact with the other aircraft in which visual separation is being applied.  It is not required that you must be in contact with that second aircraft but if said aircraft NORDO, you cannot apply visual separation.
Logged
cessna157
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 707



WWW
« Reply #19 on: April 06, 2011, 05:48:48 PM »

There's one thing you guys are missing out on, and it's the one the FAA can and will get a PIC on every time.  I don't have my regs in front of me, but part 91 says the aircraft must be operated safely and prohibits "wre3ckless operation".  That is entirely subjective, and for the investigators to determine, and there's not really any way to argue it. 

As a part 121 crew, there are certain things that we just cannot do, although it is not specifially prohibited by FARs, this would be an example of one. 
Another example: we cannot just do a low approach/fly by at an airshow with a load of revenue passengers.

Also, I don't recall the exact wording, but formation flight with any revenue passengers is also prohibited, other than some exceptions (which I guess is what was being discussed above?)

If SWA were just a standard part 91 repo flight, then this would be a completely different scenario.  A part 121 flight is held to a much higher standard than a part 91 flight.
Logged

CRJ7/CRJ9 F/O, Travel Agent
Pages: 1 [2] Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!